Your pure reason has won me over I will try to get raped so I can reply to you on your level.
I originally wrote a pretty sarcastic reply, but after lunch decided to change the tone. You are relatively new, and I have no reason to expect a certain level of argument from you one way or the other. Let me try and do this nicely.
My argument was not that no one could reply to me unless they were raped. If you went to the link I was referring to (the one crash cited), that should have been abundantly clear, though I would think you should have understood anyway if you are good with reason and argument analysis.
Crash presented a bare link, acting as if it created a rebuttal to what he implied was my position regarding consent. On top of his being incorrect about my position regarding consent (thus making the rebuttal a strawman), he was essentially making an emotional appeal, or perhaps a guilt by association argument... both fallacies.
That is because the link was to a site for people who had been assaulted/raped. Thus they must (though he provided no evidence) be against what I said, or I must in some way be against them.
My point was that such usage of that link was offensive to me personally. That would be because (beyond it being entirely not against my position) I am a member of the community being represented by that site. Crash (IIRC) has stated that he has no such experiences. That means that he is exploiting members of a community I happen to be a part of, simply throwing their existence at me as a shield against my position.
I hope you can understand how that would be both "over the top" as a form of argument in general, and offensive to me personally.
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-23-2006 06:39 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
